Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Austinrh (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 3 January 2012 (→Development Costs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Most recent playable demo part: Someone needs to change that to have it state that PAX EAST was the most recent playable demo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.96.132 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name pronunciation

One thing not mentioned at the top of the article is that I've seen many videos where people have referred to the game in speech as "Swotor", even though the actual abbreviation of the game is SWTOR. There may well be people who will hear this name, and come looking for whatever "Swotor" is; should we refer to it? I was going to add it, but I'm struggling to find a decent citation and don't want to add something to the very first lines of an article without one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.163.154 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd do would be to make a redirect page called Swotor. If no one objects to its creation then that'll fix the problem. He's Gone Mental 16:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Races and places

I have removed lists of playable races and locations from the article. The races was based on OR from a gameplay video, and the list of visitable-planets was in-universe trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, see WP:VGSCOPE #6. Lists of places, races, weapons, etc. "are considered inappropriate". If the information is worth including, integrate it elsewhere in the article, keeping in mind that articles about video games "should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception". --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid points; however, you are a damnable liar for stating that either InaMaka or Colbert4JESUS are sockpuppets. You need to get a solid grip on reality. Just because two different editors disagree with you does NOT in anyway make us sockpuppets. Grab ahold of yourself. Focus on the article and DO NOT accuse me of being a sockpuppet because you are making a laughingstock of yourself. Good grief.--InaMaka (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest one was a sock of the other, only that one seems to be an SPA. That Colbert4Jesus has only a few edits yet quickly found the "Undo" link and knows the "cite" templates suggests this is an alternate account for another user. You'd also be better served by not casting aspersions about "damnable liars" -- that you've appealed to vulgarity suggests instead you might want to "get a grip". Anyway, thank you for not again restoring the trivial material. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would be better served by not making false accusations. Oh by the way, I have a "grip" this is how I know that you don't. It is also hubris on your part to assume that you know that it is "an alternate account" merely because of the use of certain aspects of Wikipedia. You argument was so weak and your desire to control the article is so strong that you jumped to the sockpuppet claim right out of the gate. This is another sign that you lack a "grip". You would be better served focusing on the article.--InaMaka (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well look, I'm just trying to improve the article so that others may be informed about the upcoming game. According to the same article you quoted under the setting section it mentions that the setting should be described. I have taken the time to do this and find it inappropriate that it is being taken down without valid reasoning. If you would like to see what I am talking about just check the "for setting" section under the following link. WP:VGSCOPE#organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbert4Jesus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of the content you added meets any of the criteria in the VGSCOPE section you pointed toward. Wait a few weeks and maybe something other than brief gameplay videos and quick interviews will offer up the kind of information appropriate for the article. Placing the trivia/plot summary in the context of the game's development would be the most appropriate. See Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for an example of a good article that, in terms of structure and content, this article should emulate. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the superfluous List of Planets section and incorporated mentions of/references to Tython and Korriban in an appropriate part of the article. Please be mindful of the structure and content articulated at WP:VGSCOPE when making future contributions; thank you, Colbert4Jesus, at least for citing your material. --EEMIV (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least disscuss removing content before actually doing it, this isnt your artical so you can spare the lectures and respect other peoples added content. Alexsau1991 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've again excised the trivial list of planets. If there is an out-of-universe significance to their inclusion, cite and incorporate it in the Development section. But a separate section that offers just a bulleted list is insignificant trivia. See Halo 3 and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for sample video game articles and the content/structure of those. --EEMIV (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add it but Ziost (Sith Capital) will defiantly be the next introduced planet, considering that Coruscant was the last. 41.145.131.234 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

classes

To avoid this looking WP:GAMEGUIDEish, I've removed the separate "classes" section. This article doesn't need a list of classes, esp. since the language/citations now boil down to, "here's one class, and we think there are others". If D-something or anyone else disagree, please articulate a rationale here. --EEMIV (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is alot of stuff and movies out about what classes will be in the game Like the trooper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-oU_pPOj_E

There is also a cinematic trailer out, but It got removed by a bot when I added it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BjJaAA5A7w —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.200.186 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- I removed a section in the gameplay section about "all classes can fill all roles" as it does not seem in the source provided or in any other information from the game thus far that they are making any class fill any roll i think there is a level of customization available but each class and its advanced types will still be unique as in one interview that said for flash-points "a group of everyone of the same class will have a tougher time then a group with different classes" i just felt the section i removed before was a bit misleading and a tad confusing based on the information i have seen so far. i included this in the classes post as it pertains to classes (check the history and the edit that was made before mine to clarify) Evenios (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kotor fans disappointment

i see no mention of the kotor fans initial disappointments! it was huge when they first announced it. and allot of people still are disappointed with it being an mmo. it looks more like an add than a piece with critical thinking. Markthemac (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source states about fan disappointment we cannot include it, the use of forums is not really allowed. However if you do see an article on fan disappointment from a reliable source add it to the article. If you think you can improve the article in any way feel free to make changes so that it no longer looks like an ad. Dark verdant (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bioware forum is more than enough in my opinion. Markthemac (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the eyes of Wikipedia; see WP:RS & WP:SPS. --EEMIV (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, LucasArts really ruined things with MMO and Star Wars fans alike with Star Wars Galaxies. They couldn't leave things like how they were.And, with BioWare behind them, LucasArts will be able to make an excelent MMO comeback with the Star Wars franchise. And, its better that they make it all on an original and new storyline. Thats kind of what helped ruin Galaxies in the first place: stories from every Star Wars thing and no true time period! Plus, its going to be the first fully voiced over MMO! And its most likely that the action and combat will actually be realistic, like some new INTERACTIVE movie! This is necessary, so the KotOR's negative opinions don't matter. (And I'm a KotOR 2 fan!) Mr Kirby XIII (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay to play?

I see know mention of how people are going to get their hands on this game. Is it pay to play, or.. what? --75.179.182.98 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous offerings by the company, and the development cost, I am almost sure it will be pay to play (similar to EQ, WoW, etc.). I will see if I can find a specific reference where they talk about their plans, and will include it in the article if I can find it.Caidh (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it will be p2p I remember reading on the official site's FAQ about billing options and they said they are currently reviewing different billing options to best suit the player's needs (or something along those lines) so yes there will be a subscription fee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.183.81 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where ARE the faqs? i cant find them 86.136.216.175 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.swtor.com/info/faq Caidh (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks but it just says pricing will be announced at a later date 86.136.216.175 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have not officially announced it. There is no way it will be anything other than a normal subscription model - but that's my own (pretty good) assumption. There shouldn't be anything in the article about monthly pricing or free-to-play or anything else yet. When official details are released, we'll know but I can't find any official word on it anywhere.
so thats why it isnt on the main page yet
alright thanks man 86.136.216.175 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created a section called "Marketing" where I clarified and explained game costs and the pay to play structure of the game. Rainroom (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no way to play offline then? Online multi-player with subscription or nothin'. Guess I'll skip this one. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this game is a MMORPG meaning all gameplay and interaction occurs online. Minimum is a 14.99 monthly payment. This game is easily one of the best MMORPG's which I have ever played, granted my opinion on the matter has no bearing on the article. But, worst case scenario, I would advise that before you snub it, spend the $60 and try it for 30 days. User:Aneah 14:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Vehicles

Am I the only one that notices there are no vehicles, starships, or speeders of any kind? No mention whatsoever in any previews, documentaries, or press releases. They really should say something about this in a future press release or video, unless someone wants to comment on it. Goldwings (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BioWare decided not to say anything about a part of the Game that is not yet finished. So vehicles are most likley not metioned because BioWare ist still working on them. 84.176.222.156 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough answer for me! Goldwings (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newest trailer shows a sith warrior on a speeder bike, so we can be almost sure that vehicles will be in the game. But we do not jet know if you can drive them yourself or if they just bring you from a fixed point A to a fixed point B. 84.176.216.12 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there will be star ships, unknown about land vehicles. the offical site has inf about them and a video showing the 2 currentally realeased and some others. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bioware has announced personal vehicles, everyone get's their own personal starship http://www.swtor.com/info/holonet/starships and their own mounts, which was confirmed at E3. EzzeJenkins (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted release Spring 2011

Right now it says in this article that the release date is Spring 2011. Since they're only aiming for Spring 2011 and have not yet officially announced a release date, shouln't this be reverted to TBA? 194.78.37.122 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the targeted release date is important information, but you're right that it shouldn't be listed as a matter of fact. I've prefixed it with "targeted for", since as you say this reflects much better what they actually wrote. Amalthea 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Amazon.co.uk product page the release date is 25 March 2011, despite the fact BioWare's FAQ indicates that they still have no release date. 88.107.146.145 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As BioWare said, all release dates given by any shops should be considerd speculation or placeholders until an official release date is announced be BioWare, LucasArts or ElectronicArts. 84.176.251.46 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We must wait for an official announcement regarding the release date, so we will leave the release date as is until that happens. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are a lot of people like me, who, wondering just when the release date for The Old Republic is, about, they go online and search. So, when these people come to this page, they will read, very quickly oftentimes, that it is to be released in Q1/Q1 of 2011. That's fine, but it seems that people may not know what these words mean. They might, but wouldn't it just be easier to say something in the lede with the simple, "spring 2011", as on the community forum, "While we have not announced a specific date, we can confirm that we are targeting a spring 2011 release for Star Wars™: The Old Republic™." It's minor, but might help some people understand, I think. What do you guys think? makeswell (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the quarter notation is confusing then it should be linked to e.g. Q1 (calendar year), where there's at least some explanation.
However, in this particular case, I agree that we should write "Spring": 1) The source says "Spring", and we dilute that piece of information by noting Q1/Q2 2) While industry standard may be to classify estimated release dates in quarters, it's not necessary or preferable to do so in a general purpose encyclopedia
Amalthea 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG

To the anonymous editor with the misconception that this is BioWare's second MMORPG: it is not, and please stop editing as such. Neverwinter Nights was a standard RPG, not an MMO. Also, Warhammer Online was taken over by BioWare after development was completed, so that doesn't count either.199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was correct about NWK being a MMORPG capitalising your frustration on another editor reverting his edits by expressing so in capital letters in the article is a truly idiotic thing to do which is considered vandalism and could bring the anonymous closer to being blocked. Alexsau1991 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of the confusion is over the original NeverWinter Nights from AOL, which could be considered an MMO, but was SSI, not Bioware. This is in fact Bioware's first MMO as the article states. It is not the first Neverwinter Nights MMO, but is definitely the first one that Bioware has been involved in.Caidh (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget numbers

Whether or not the budget numbers are ridiculous, they source of those numbers does not count as a reliable source. It is an anonymous blogger with an obvious axe to grind and no evidence of these claims. Unless someone can give a compelling reason that the source is reliable as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned, I will remove the budget statement (which was removed last week and re-added today). Caidh (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

At the minute the release could be anytime after Q2 in 2011, there been no information that it's limited to Q3/4. 82.29.4.50 (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the release date to reflect what I found here http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=258996 Sublime8510 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've changed it to say Q2-Q4 to show the reader that it is expected to be released this year – "after March 31" sounded a bit open ended.
Cheers, Amalthea 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Having a brain fart day. Thanks Sublime8510 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gamestop comment on the November release date should be removed. It is common knowledge that retailers come up with a date on their own purely to satisfy the requirements of their point of sale system. it is not fact and could be misleading. - J - Sept 8 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.233.221 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound stupid (and it will) but is there a way to lock the release date 'cuz that is the biggest magnetic change to this page- day in, day out. I've even done it from Amazon.com's initial date, my mistake, though I'd wage on it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release date has been announced: 20 Dec in the US, 22 DEC in the EU. http://www.swtor.com/news/news-article/20110924 194.78.37.122 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nothing about EA Louse

https://ealouse.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.58.34.166 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why there needs to be anything from him/her. A blog is not a reliable source and the soapbox of a former employee would not have anything to add to an encyclopedic article.Caidh (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

"The title has already begun to receive a great deal of praise from various media outlets several months before its release. Pax East 2011 provided the public the most recent chance to go hands on with The Old Republic. Many gaming related news sources gave the project accolades for its showing at the convention. GameTrailers awarded the game both Best RPG and Best Online Game of E3 2010. IGN has also praised the story of the Jedi Consular, stating that it's easy to focus more on the story instead of the mission at hand."

Does anyone know where this is sourced from (specific web addresses)? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The section as it is currently written is not reliable, and gives too much weight to otherwise unsourced criticisms. The three sources in this section are all forum posts, and therefore are not reliable sources. The information inserted is obviously contentious, as it was introduced into the article yesterday, and was subsequently removed four times by three different editors (myself included) in less than twenty-four hours. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, I've removed the section. - SudoGhost 20:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur as when I deleted it without any sources at all on 9/20. Nothing to reference equals no section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BioWare to create 200 additional jobs in Ireland for TOR launch

http://www.develop-online.net/news/38725/New-Bioware-facility-creates-200-jobs-in-Ireland


Don't know how notable this is. Maybe it can be used as a side note in a release/launch section or something, if you guys would like 50.43.32.31 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from ShrikeArghast, 30 September 2011

Controversy:

At approximately 9:30 PM EST on September 29, 2011, Bioware released a pair of controversial emails that reached substantial number of subscribers to the SWTOR website. The first of these emails (apparently sent in error) requested that former beta testers preorder the game. The second email contained a link to a survey that ex beta testers could fill out describing their experiences in the game. Unfortunately, these emails were directed to the entire community, the majority of which had never beta tested The Old Republic. The resultant rush for information and angry spam of the forums caused the website to collapse, and then remain partially shut down by Bioware for several hours.

ShrikeArghast (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a source--Jac16888 Talk 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LucasArts Taking 35 Percent Cut of Old Republic – Report

"The revenue split is around 35 percent to LucasArts after EA earns back their investment. That means EA keeps most of the revenue from disc sales (they have marketing expenses and need to staff up the server farms), so they should earn a nice profit there. Keep in mind that EA expensed the development cost when incurred, so much of the disc sales revenue will be profit."

That is all after factoring in the projected 35 percent cut that LucasArts will take in for the project. With 1.5 million projected subscribers, that number is looking to be huge. Pachter believes that year one sales should easily hit $80 million in profits." LucasArts Taking 35 Percent Cut of Old Republic – Report industrygamers.com.91.39.93.181 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just expounding for a bit here: When costs are expensed when incurred, you are simply "in the hole" earlier than paying off expenses *after* generating revenue/income. Regardless, you're still in the hole for that project. Also, manufacturing and distribution costs are huge expense factors -- would be remiss to leave that out of a summary of costs.

--JRK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.112.33 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Quotes

I think several parts of this article suffer from citation overusage: WP:QUOTE#Overusing_quotations as well as exceeding WP:VGSCOPE#Inappropriate_content 5. & 6. in the gameplay section. For example the following sentence: "At a development cost rumored to be over $135 million, The Old Republic is one of the most expensive video games ever created." This sentence alone has 3 citations, while not even one really claims that it is "one of the most expensive video games ever created".

Especially the gameplay part has a huge amount of quotes. While I think it's fine to use different citations for different aspects of the gameplay, using a citation for every single planet that is included seems to be way too much, especially as the conformity of such content description with WP:VGSCOPE #5 & #6 is doubtful. Makrom (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a large portion of the gameplay references, most of which were primary sourced from swtor.com anyways. The other sentence you referenced was additionally cited after removal by another editor claiming there were no other sources and that the original was a "tabloid" and unreliable. I'll trim it to the WSJ citation, which should be reliable enough to avoid any removal. The sentence also originally read "may be one of" and someone changed it to "is one of" ferret (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

Ok, someone quoted a source which said "[the game] has hundreds of hours of content.", more or less in those words. Really, of ALL the quotes to source that's one of them we picked to showcase the game's positive reception? Most GOOD MMO's have hundreds of hrs of content (unless we're taking *fun* repetitiveness out of the equation?). So, if my hunch here is correct in any way, I'm pretty sure this is a misuse of a source (quoting a sample from a source to mislead readers or misrepresent the source itsel). Not really a big deal given the matter at hand, but we gotta nip buds as they appear. Elaboration is required (provide the quotation in broader context).

Anyway, there should be a criticism section here. Criticism will always come for something as large as SWTOR -- positively received or not. No one found any reviews complaining about the combat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.112.33 (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are still rolling in and this section will change many times over the coming weeks. Let's wait to nit-pick at quotes until we have more material to work with. Reception includes criticism unless there is enough of it that it would require a separate section. Austin de Rossi (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sections have mostly been eliminated on Wikipedia. Criticisms should not be a seperate section but simply a part of the reception, sourced just as any other information in that section. Also, you're welcome to help expand the section by adding more detailed information or critism from the reviews. In specific to your first post though, PC Gamer explicitly listed the hundreds of hours of LAUNCH content as a positive. Yes, "most" MMOs have hundreds of hours, but often that is due to expansions and patches, compared to their original launch content. Again, feel free to find some other reviews and expand the section, a review for a game of this magnitude tends to be very large and although I myself have read through two, I haven't had time to dig deep into any others. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The journalists have had access to betas and shippable builds quite long before launch, it is hard to keep tab on who has published what and when, so I'll have to keep looking at Metacritic, etc. to see how many full-fledged reviews are in. Also, WoW, GW stand as exceptions to the rules (I guess) when talking about launch content, so I guess we're all right to a degree here. (I'm the guy who made this section btw, no account yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.48.69 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development Costs

Having just updated a citation for a new rumoured development cost, I had a search around the internet and couldn't find any reliable source for how much the game actually cost to develop, should we leave this line in here, or change it to be less specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwalton9 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, I believe the statement accurately reflects the references I have found. Almost every news article about the game references and uses roughly this same figure (between $100-$130M) and is based on an independent estimate. If you have another wording, feel free to change it or propose it here, but I personally think it is fine.Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, after reviewing a few other sources I am inclined to agree. I am seeing figures from $80M up to $300M, which is quite a wide range. Thoughts from others? Austin de Rossi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the 300M figure from a reliable source. Everything I've seen (though I may have missed some) either uses or sources the EA Louse blog, which is not an RS. There are sources that refer to that as 'ridiculous' though. Other than discounting the 300M figure, EA has been closed mouthed about the costs and I'm not sure all the articles (which seem to always use the term rumored) mentioning smaller figures are sufficient. The only one I've seen which might be usable would be: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/star-wars-mmo-costs-an-estimated-80-million-to-develop/ which should still be used with caution (i.e. "analysts estimate that the investment exceeds $80 million").Caidh (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot establish a Reliable source for this, I propose taking the statement out. If nobody objects that is. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 15:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen from various references 80M, 100M, or 130M. So I propose we say "development costs are rumored to be between 80M - 130M...". I have seen development costs referenced is virtually every article I have read about the game, so I do feel it is relevant and should be in the article in some capacity. Until a decision is made, I changed the figure back to $130M, which is what it was before somebody changed it to $300. Austin de Rossi (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to 300M, again. The current source lists 300M, and is from Joystiq, generally considered reliable in gaming articles. I'm not opposed to the figure changing, but it should match the source in use. If you want to change the figure, change the source. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I clarified the dev costs and updated the source to use the one cited by the Joystiq article. I also removed the 'most expensive game ever' claim as this was not included in either source. Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Old_Republic&oldid=469344585"